Back in late October, the County Board of Supervisors held off on raising the speed limit, on the stretch of Russell from Pedrick Road to Lake Blvd, to 45 mph from the current 35 mph.
To illustrate the dangers of current road speeds on this stretch was a serious injury accident that occurred on Wednesday, as a pedestrian crossed that stretch of road.
According to a press release from the Davis Police Department, Davis Police Officers were dispatched to the area of Russell and Lake Boulevard for a traffic collision. Officers determined that 61-year-old George Souza (a Woodland resident) was driving his Ford Pickup eastbound on Russell Boulevard.
25-year-old Megan Glanville (From Chico, but currently living in Davis) was crossing Russell Boulevard as a pedestrian where Russell intersects Lake Boulevard. As Megan Glanville crossed Russell, she was hit by the pickup truck driven by Souza.
Megan Glanville suffered severe injuries, including head trauma. She was rushed, by ambulance, to the UCD Medical Center in Sacramento. Megan Glanville is being treated for her injuries there at the UCD Medical Center, and her current condition is listed as critical.
Police do not believe that drugs or alcohol were a factor in this incident, but they suspect that the heavy morning fog played a role.
The problem with the entire stretch of road on Russell, that begins as soon as Arlington Blvd veers off from it, is that it looks like a rural road for a stretch of perhaps a mile to a mile and a half. But it is not a rural road.
The press release did not list the speed, but this is the exact problem that was brought up at the meeting with the Board of Supervisors back in October.
The county was concerned about the enforceability of the speed limit and that was their impetus for wanting to raise the speed on this stretch.
Staff argued, “These actions will bring affected speed limits into compliance with the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and ensure that the posted speed limits are enforceable under state law.”
The California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) govern the criteria for establishment of speed limits. The CVC sets the basic speed limit for two-lane, undivided highways at 55 mph.
According to the staff report, “Setting speed limits outside the guidelines constitutes a speed trap, under the CVC, and those speed limits are not enforceable using radar.”
That is based on the premise that they are required to set speed limits in the 85th percentile, that is, a speed at which 85% of the drivers will drive at a reasonable speed for the road and conditions.
“To establish a speed zone less than 55 mph the agency must conduct an E&TS [Engineering and Traffic Survey], including a speed zone survey,” the staff report argued.
According to Panos Kokkas, the Yolo County Assistant Director of Planning and Public Works, they did a speed survey last year that showed the 85th percentile for Russell Blvd was 49 mph, which he characterized as “rather high compared to the posted speed.”
Based on that, he argued that the speed limit would need to be 50 mph, but due to the residential areas, school, children and churches in the vicinity, they determined that they could lower that to 45 mph.
According to Mr. Kokkas, if the speed limit is not raised, it would go back to 55 mph, which is the basic non-posted speed limit, and people driving 55 mph or less could not be cited.
Concerns were raised that raising the speed limit would further drive up the speeds. But Mr. Kokkas, citing limited data from a pilot study conducted in Davis, argued that they should find that the actual speeds remained constant, despite the increase in the posted speed limit.
The motion made by Councilmember Don Saylor and passed by the Board of Supervisors instructs their staff to look into road-calming measures.
Supervisor Matt Rexroad, while concerned about raising speed limits, was concerned with the overall cost of such measures.
The Vanguard has also learned that a serious accident involving a child was the original rationale for lowering the speed limit in the first place.
Staff argues, and they may be correct, that studies show that posted speed limits do not impact the speed of the road.
While we certainly sympathize with the budgetary aspect of smart road designs, on the other hand, from what we have learned in Davis, a lot of these traffic-calming measures do not have to be overly-expensive. In addition, grant money is often available to implement smarter street designs.
Immediately after the meeting in October, we drove the stretch and realized that if one is coming from Pedrick Road northbound and turns eastbound on Russell, there is no 35 mph sign visible until you are inside the Davis city limits.
Staff argues that this does not matter, but it is almost counterintuitive.
What does matter is that there may be a public safety threat on these roads and the county and city need to work together to get funding to make that stretch of road safer without raising the speed limits – which, while enabling the police to enforce the higher speeds, does not address the core issues here.
It was later reported that Ms. Glanville passed away from her injuries.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David – We have gone over these issues before but just to reiterate: given that the “critical speed” is 49 MPH on that stretch the county is limited in it ability to lower the speed limiet while keeping it “enforceable.” Enforceable means it can use electronic means to assess speeds and issue tickets. If the posted speed limit is set too low it can use these measures but judges will not uphold speeding tickets.
AB 529, which becomes law on January 1, 2012 will have this effect (taken from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0501-0550/ab_529_bill_20111007_chaptered.html):
[quote][/quote]This bill would require the Department of Transportation to revise the Manual, as it read on January 1, 2012, to require the department or a local authority to round speed limits to within 5 miles per hour of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. The bill would allow, in cases in which the speed limit needs to be rounded up to the nearest 5 miles per hour increment of the 85th-percentile speed, the department or a local authority to decide to instead round down the speed limit to the lower 5 miles per hour increment, but then the department or a local authority would be prohibited from reducing the speed limit any further for any reason.[quote][/quote]
What this means for the case of Russell in the segment under discussion is that the county could lower the speed limit to 45 MPH and have it be enforceable. It could not lower it any further and enforce the limit.
I would favor traffic calming for this segment (and some others around Davis), unfortunately calming all the streets that need to be calmed will be expensive. I believe, therefore, that the way we are going to have to go is to seek a further change to the law that would allow local jurisdictions to set their own speed limits based on the needs/realities of their communities. The Russell segment would be an example of a road that we as local citizens understand much better than the state. We (county government) should, therefore, have the right to lower the limit. That segment is used by large numbers of pedestrians and cyclists and we should be able to lower and enforce lower limits based on the reality of OUR community’s needs not a “one size fits all” state statute.
David, it would be ideal if we never had any traffic accidents, but the reality is far from the ideal. IMHO, a better way to look at the Russell situation is to look at accident frequency rather than focus on one single accident.
With that said, how frequenly are accidents reported on that stretch of Russell?
Robb: Good post.
Matt: I have a request in on that point.
Matt: to add to that, I not only live near that section of road, I utilize the bike path frequently and I’m always nervous walking across Russell at that intersection because it’s difficult to know how fast cars are really going. I’ve misjudged cars both ways in the past. Given the number of kids and students on bikes, I think it’s an area of concern.
I know the church people were concerned about the stretch closer to Pedrick. Ultimately I agree with Robb that we need traffic calming measures, but the supervisors have a limited budget and seemed reluctant when I spoke to them in October.
David and Robb, the key appears to be pedestrian-auto with special concentration at the cross walks. Embedded blinking lights that the pedestrian/bicylist pushes to clearly advise any oncoming car that they are in an [u]active[/u] right of way situation would seem to be the best of the traffic calming alternatives.
Matt – Last week at the 5th Street redesign input meeting we saw at least one new technology that seems to be working well in alerting cars to pedestrian crossings. I won’t get into the description here (have to look it up) but my point is that such things are possible.
However, I also want to add that I think we can and should take a preventive approach to reducing the likelihood of injury in the case of accidents by pushing for lower speeds on segments with high pedestrian and bike involvement. One of my New Year’s resolutions 😉 is to write a summary article on research on car speeds and pedestrian and bike injury probabilities at different speeds.
Beyond this I think we need to lower speeds on a limited number of segments to encourage more people (especially children) to bike/walk. We have 30+ out of compliance streets in the city meaning that the critical speeds are way beyond the posted speed limits. Some of these streets are important bike/pedestrian thoroughfares and we need low cost solutions to calming them to encourage more biking and walking (per city goals on mode share shifts). I will continue to argue (until someones just tells me I am crazy) that one way to do this is to push for legislation that allows us to create our own speed limits and enforce them. We know our city and what its goals are and the state should yield decisions about local speed limits to us.
BTW, speed limit reductions and “slower cities” are being discussed more widely (see http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/in_the_future_urban_bikers_go_faster_than_cars/). I realize that some readers of this blog will object that such speed limit reductions are a limit to personal freedom but I would answer that this is a “car-centric” view of the world.
Robb Davis
I read that the pedestrian hit was jogging. Was she wearing ear phones and distracted by listening to music? Did she stop and look before crossing? If she had stopped and looked before crossing, with the thickness of the fog, could she have seen the car approaching? Was she wearing clothes, so that, even with the fog, the driver could have seen her? There are so many factors here.
The only pedestrian accident I remember at this intersection was years ago when students were still being bused to school. The bus stop was on the corner of Russell and Lake and while waiting a student stepped off the curb and was clipped by a passing car and killed. The school district moved the bus stop a block up Lake to a safer location after that.
I realize I’ve primarily suggested factors involving the pedestrian. Here are others: Was the driver going too fast for the conditions, regardless of the speed limit? Was the driver distracted by activities in the car (tuning the radio, drinking coffee, conversing with passengers, etc.)?
Ryan has good questions… to these, I would add: what was the speed of the vehicle? Were the headlights on?
Under the law, the “basic speed law” can trump the posted limit… given the fog and time of day, you can be cited at much lower than than the posted speed given the driver’s ability to react and stop in time to avoid a collision. On the pedestrian/jogger side, anyone crossing streets in those conditions should give serious consideration to wearing reflective clothing and/or have a light so that vehicles (be they bicycles or cars) can detect their presence.
Bad news: just got a press release from DPD: the victim has passed away from her injuries.
So very sad. My thoughts are with her family and friends.
As I have mentioned before in a previous post, the intersection at Lake and Russell is particularly dangerous. When I used to live in an apt right there, there were no less than five accidents in one year as I remember it. I notified the city of Davis, requesting a 3 way stop, but was ignored. A 3 way stop at that intersection would force cars to slow down on that stretch of road. A stop sign could also be placed at the church that is located on Russell west of the Lake/Russell intersection. I do not believe adjusting speed limits will make a hill of beans difference, as it is a lengthy stretch of country road with minimal side streets that people see as an opportunity to “gun it”. No matter what speed limits are placed on that stretch of road, my guess is drivers will continue to go way too fast for conditions. Two stop signs (a minimal cost) would force traffic to slow down…
Why not put a stop sign at Lake and Russel? How damn expensive can that be?
Regardless, a big part of the blame goes to fog. It has been responsible for many terrible traffic accidents and deaths.
Related to a stop sign and fog, I have watched cars sail through intersections not seeing a stop sign. Maybe a stop sign would not have helped in this situation.
Even so, my heart goes out to this young girl and her family, and to the driver. What a tragedy.
Does anyone know what a lighted pedestrian crossing costs… like the one on Russel where pedestrians can push a button to cause flashing lights to cause the traffic to stop? I think that could be a good alternative in addition to stop sign.
One other point about that stretch of Russel. People cross all up and down it. That is a problem with bike and pedestrian flow… people taking risks instead of walking or riding a little farther to use a safer and more common crossing. Just like people biking on Fifth Street without a bike or helmet light after the sun has gone down. There is only so much we can do to keep people safe from their own bad judgment.
Toward Jeff’s point, the accident appears to be to the west of the cross walk.
Spoke with the Lt. at the DPD and they can’t release info on the speed of the vehicle at this time.
I’m terribly saddened that Megan was killed. I’m particularly sensitive about this right now because I just experienced the death of my best friend’s wife on October 30th. She was a pedestrian killed by a person driving an automobile also. Deaths such as these are easily preventable and we as society have a responsibility to make the roads safer.
Two points:
1. These laws that force city road designers to set speeds limits based on the 85th percentile are absurd. The majority of our roads are wide and straight with clear shoulders. This is the pretty much the most enticing environment for traveling fast in an automobile. So of course the average speeds are going be high, often regardless of how well the speeds are enforced by policemen. There is a simple solution: make narrow roads, that aren’t straight and have obstacles. People will not drive fast if this is the case. There are expensive ways to do this and the inexpensive. I’m reminded of driving home one night from the North Sea to my house in the Netherlands. I was passing through a residential area on a road similar to Russell. All of a sudden a concrete barrier was in front of my car, blocking my lane, forcing me to travel in the oncoming traffic lane to pass. The other lane had a similar barrier 100 feet up. This may sound insane to us, but it caused all of the cars on this road to #1 drive slowly and #2 actually interact with each other for safe passage of all vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. I didn’t get it at the moment and was just dumbfounded, but I now see how that device made this unbelievably safer for all users.
2. Ryan Kelly’s questions are not good questions. Pedestrians should not have to worry about dying when crossing a road!!!, regardless if we are listening to music, don’t have reflective clothing on, or are just busy scratching our asses. I want to live in an environment where I don’t have to be worried about being smashed by 5000lb vehicle when I’m just out for a run regardless of how clueless I am. We as a society have created roads that are death traps for all users: motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists. I’m a fan of making the speeds limits a function of momentum (mass times speed) instead of speed alone. That way massive vehicles have to go slow and when collisions happen between any two road users the energy is low enough that *all* people involved live to see the next day. The details of the accident are irrelevant in my eyes; roads should be safe, simple is that. They currently are not.
[quote]One other point about that stretch of Russel. People cross all up and down it. That is a problem with bike and pedestrian flow… people taking risks instead of walking or riding a little farther to use a safer and more common crossing. Just like people biking on Fifth Street without a bike or helmet light after the sun has gone down. There is only so much we can do to keep people safe from their own bad judgment.[/quote]
We are both in agreement to the solution here Jeff – a stop sign to make the intersection of Russell and Lake a 3 way stop. However, there is no question that bicyclists and pedestrians cross Russell in various places to get over to the south side and onto the bicycle/pedestrian path that runs along Russell in West Davis. But as far as I have been able to tell, bicyclists/pedestrians are only crossing Russell in the designated crosswalks there. Unfortunately oftentimes the bicyclists/pedestrians tend to blend in with the walnut trees that line Russell in West Davis, so are not always readily visible as they step out into the street. A flashing yellow at such spots would be great, but I find that pedestrians/bicyclists do not always use such signals. Another thing I have heard about is flashing lights actually embedded in the road. But the flashing lights are an expensive approach which the city probably cannot afford at the moment. But I would think two simple stop signs at the intersection of Russell and Lake would be cheap and effective enough to make this intersection and that stretch of road much safer. Add a 3 way stop at the church to the west, and I suspect traffic would slow down quite a bit along the entire stretch of Russell between Portage Bay and Cactus Corners. Obviously the fog makes everything more dangerous, and everybody should be more careful when it rolls in.
I’m sure everyone on the Vanguard is saddened by the death of the victim of this accident; and the driver who will have to live w the consequences. Our hearts go out to their families as well…
The fog yesterday morning was some of the densest I’ve ever seen in Davis. I was driving to work on campus at 5:30 am, and I could not safely drive faster than 20 mph through town. Even though I knew where all the road intersections and stop signs were, they tended to take me by surprise. Anyone traveling by any mode – walking, bicycling, driving – should have been extremely cautious.
This evening, I went to pick up a pizza at Steve’s, and observed a number of people doing extremely stupid things. Jaywalking in dark clothing, assuming any traffic would slow for them. Cyclists without lights or reflectors, again in dark clothing. As a cycling advocate, behavior like this really frustrates me.
None of these actions by stupid people have any bearing on the “accident” that resulted in the death of a promising law student, but they illustrate how far we have to go as a community to have a safe, predictable transportation system. All parties involved have to take responsibility. I hope the Davis PD does a thorough investigation into the cause of this fatality, and I hope the City follows through with proper mitigation to prevent future incidents of this type.
[quote]Why not put a stop sign at Lake and Russel? How damn expensive can that be?[/quote]about $180k.
My mistake… thought the question was traffic SIGNAL… stop signs, around $1,000… under the fog daylight conditions, not sure that the tragedy would have been avoided. There would have been more gravitas to charge the driver, who may have not been “at fault”.
ok jrberg… the city has the responsibility to keep people performing stupid actions completely safe from the consequences of their actions? Good luck with that, unless you are an attorney…
[quote]This may sound insane to us[/quote]you are correct… it is insane…
[quote][None of these actions by stupid people have any bearing on the “accident” that resulted in the death of a promising law student, but they illustrate how far we have to go as a community to have a safe, predictable transportation system. All parties involved have to take responsibility/quote]Absolutely correct!
@hpierce
Yes, I’m correct that it “sounds insane”, but there is nothing insane about forcing automobiles to go slow. We can slow automobiles in 99% of the cases by a countless number of physical and/or psychological methods. And these methods are so effective, that the need for speed enforcement by police can completely be eliminated. In fact, the technology exists for us to limit the maximum speed of every automobile using their GPS location. But for our poor city budget, concrete barriers could do the same thing for much cheaper.
Megan’s life is no doubt worth the 180k for a stop light or the cost of any other traffic calming measure we come up with.
OSHA forces companies to implement Zero Injury policies, why don’t we do the same for our streets?
moorepants said . . .
[i]”OSHA forces companies to implement Zero Injury policies, why don’t we do the same for our streets?”[/i]
To accomplish OSHA levels of protection would mean a full ban of the use of telephones and portable listening devices while walking, jogging, riding and/or driving. Are you ready to take that step. Substantial fines would need to be mandatory for all violations.
Clothing while walking and/or riding would need to be mandated to be of light color with reflective materials sewn in and/or battery powered blinking lights after dusk. Are you ready/willing to go to that level of proactivity? Will the ACLU support that level of proactivity?
The tragic reality is that if a pedestrian darts out in front of a motor vehicle (which may or may not have happened in this tragic incident), they have a high probability of a very bad outcome. There are some in the community who would advocate that no motor vehicle travel over 15 mph on ANY street. Just ban cars…. cars are most inefficient, and create more greenhouse gases when not operated in the 40-50 mph range.
Politically incorrect as it is, I am praying for the the repose of the soul of Megan, and for comfort and support of her familoy and friends, and for the driver involved, and his family and friends.
To everybody… be careful this holiday season… we don’t want to lose any of you. God bless.
“The tragic reality is that if a pedestrian darts out in front of a motor vehicle (which may or may not have happened in this tragic incident), they have a high probability of a very bad outcome. “
That is true. However, if people are driving slower, (A) it is more likely that they can stop or at least hit them with a good deal less force and (B) it is more likely the pedestrian will see the vehicle and be able to avoid getting hit. The difference in force and stopping time between 35 mph and 55 mph is huge.
The discussion here and exploration of options is helpful. I mentioned in an earlier comment a pedestrian crossing enhancement recommended by the Alta consultants at last week’s 5th Street redesign workshop. The crossing enhancement which, according to the consultant, is showing good results is called the “rectangular rapid flash beacon”. I cannot vouch for its usefulness and know nothing of the cost–I am merely repeating what the consultant told me.
The “Insurance Institute for Highway Safety” (Google them if you want to know more about their credibility) has a useful Q/A section on pedestrian safety issues with summary answers referenced to studies. They say this in response to the question “How can the frequency or severity of pedestrian crashes be reduced?”
[quote]A 2003 Institute review of traffic engineering measures to reduce pedestrian crashes identified several effective approaches, which generally can be classified into three broad categories: [b]separating pedestrians from vehicles by time or space, making pedestrians easier to spot, and reducing vehicle speeds.[/b]
Effective countermeasures involving separation include sidewalks, overpasses and underpasses, refuge islands in the medians of busy two-way streets, and exclusive traffic signal phasing that stops all vehicle traffic for part or all of the pedestrian crossing signal duration. Effective measures to help drivers see pedestrians include brighter roadway lighting…
Higher vehicle speeds are strongly associated with both a greater likelihood of pedestrian crashes and more serious pedestrian injuries. Effective engineering measures to reduce speeds in urban areas include construction of roundabouts in place of stop signs and traffic signals, traffic calming devices such as speed humps, and multiway stop signs. Speed limits should be strictly enforced in areas of pedestrian activity.
[/quote] (emphasis mine)
To this last point I add (again) my view that cities and counties need to be allowed to set and enforce [b]their own speed limits.[/b] Moorepants has other good ideas for traffic calming that force cars to go more slowly.
To hpierce I merely say that reducing and enforcing speeds on certain city streets to 25 MPH would go a long way to reducing the probability of injury in case of accidents (I am not sure who, exactly, is talking about 15 MPH but the Bicycle Advisory and Safety and Parking Advisory Commissions passed a motion several months ago recommending the city work to adopt a city-wide 25 MPH enforceable speed limit).
A quick search of the web will reveal data that shows a general result that traveling at 25 MPH is no more fuel inefficient than traveling at 65 MPH–which we allow on major highways. The efficiency results are subject to many variables and hybrid cars are much more efficient at very low speeds. So… yes, we give up some fuel efficiency for safety just as we seem to be willing to give up fuel efficiency to allow people to get to their destination faster on freeways.
One other point from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Q/A that might be of interest. Again, they are summarizing various studies:
[quote]Public education programs generally have not been effective in reducing pedestrian crashes. Children however are an exception…[/quote]
“Bicycle Advisory and Safety and Parking Advisory Commissions passed a motion several months ago recommending the city work to adopt a city-wide 25 MPH enforceable speed limit).”
That’s a terrible idea. If there are bad stretches of roads then that situation needs to be addressed but a city-wide 25 mph speed limit is going way too far over the top.
Depends on what a city-wide 25 mph enforeable speed limit means. If it means a uniform speed limit of 25 mph across town, I agree with you. If it means making it so that 25 mph could be enforceable city wide if the conditions of the road and traffic warrant it then it’s a great idea.
Well, the way that reads to me, and not surprisingly being that it’s coming from the bicycle gang, is they’re suggesting a 25 mph city-wide speed limit on any street at any time. There’s a middle ground where safety and the needs of people have to meet and doing something too draconian as a city-wide low speed limit isn’t the solution.
Rusty49 – The intent was that 25 would be the default and higher speeds would need to be justified–which they could be on arterials. Calm down… it was a recommendation and has no force unless CC decides to go in that direction. What it MEANS is that we would seek to calm most streets to 25.
What it does NOT mean is that arterials like Cowell or Mace or Russell would be reduced to that.
It was passed as a broader motion about traffic calming and was born out of a fear that speeds limits are “creeping up” because of critical speed increases (the famous 85th percentile). What the Commissions were stating was a desire to see City staff apply traffic calming measures to streets rather than default merely to higher speed limit postings.
It was designed to make us stop and think about where speed limits are going in this town.
That’s close to what I thought it was and I think as Robb indicates in reaction to the gut reaction for the city to raise speeds every time the 85th percentile comes into play.
There is no “bicycle gang” that I am aware of and groups I am part of are certainly NOT advocating or pushing for 25 MPH “on any street at any time.” That is simply not true.
What some groups ARE concerned about are speeds (and raising speed limits) on streets that are heavily used by children. These include but are not limited to segments of Villanova, Loyola, J Street and Sycamore ALL of which are key routes children use to bike and walk to school.
Robb Davis
Robb, I think you’re the one that needs to CALM DOWN.
Rusty49–My sincere apologies if I offended you. That was not my intent. I have made my points and will bow out now.
The more traffic calming I see, the less I like it . Driver education and vigorous enforcement of existing laws, including V.C. section 22350(The basic speed law), are more effective and efficient by any measure . No signage or signals will help those too stupid to turn on their headlights in the fog, which is a major problem in this area . In Sacramento, traffic calming measures have largely confused already challenged drivers and made navigating mid-town a nightmare, causing several neighborhood shops to close for lack of accessibility . The cost of the project and constant replacement of signage and obstructions would pay for two full-time, dedicated motor officers easily .
A few years ago, stopped at a stop sign waiting for traffic to pass to make a right turn, at the moment when I start to take off a runner is suddenly in front of my truck flipping me the bird and yelling at me to watch were I am going.
I rolled down my window and told him that had I not seen him I might have got a citation, but he might be dead… and so HE should be more careful.
Thinking about this event has caused me to consider the difference in bikes, pedestrians and runners. Runners are different animals relative to traffic safety. They can materialize out of nowhere. They reduce the reaction time a driver has for avoiding them. Their movement is less predictable and less common.
Davis has a high percentage of runners. I am one. I wear headphones when I run. However, I generally do not run around busy streets. I walk to and from a bike path or safe road.
Maybe a runner safety brochure delivered at the college would help reduce some risk of traffic encounters. Wearing the proper reflective gear… running on trails and not busy streets… Not wearing headphones when there is traffic around so engine sounds can be heard to help improve reaction time. And lastly… and this is an important thing for all bike-riders, pedestrians and runners… when crossing a street with traffic, make sure you make eye contact with drivers and acquire a sign that they see you and will wait for you to cross.
Jeff-I drove a 24′ flatbed with a welder and hoist on the back for 15 years . Thankfully, I managed to miss all those folks who asserted their right to be in the same space as my front wheels . One thing I wish people would stop doing and teaching their kids is to ride bikes against traffic . Another dangerous habit I’ve observed is rolling right turns on red lights. Oh, and jeez Louise, turn on your headlights in the fog . Safe and Happy Holidays, everyone .
Robb… I know someone (who I believe is trustworthy) who was at the joint meeting of which you spoke… they indicate that one of the staff asked specifically whether that motion for a 25 MPH limit applied to Covell… my source said that several commissioners said YES.
“Robb… I know someone (who I believe is trustworthy) who was at the joint meeting of which you spoke… they indicate that one of the staff asked specifically whether that motion for a 25 MPH limit applied to Covell… my source said that several commissioners said YES.”
I can’t imagine driving down Covell at 25 mph.
Okay, I said I was bowing out but I will come back in to respond to these comments. I made the motion in question. It came after a long discussion about speed studies and the issue of raising speed limits on street segments that were “out of compliance.” The agenda item in question concerned only J Street between Covell and 8th Streets and traffic calming options for that street. As I listened to the discussion it became clear to me that we needed to move the broader conversation in the direction of how we are going to deal with increasing speed limits at other places in the city.
My motion was a recommendation that we make the default speed limit 25–and work to calm streets to achieve an enforceable 25 MPH speed limit–and then examine streets and make exceptions. I honestly don’t recall any commissioner saying that the 25 MPH would automatically apply to Covell. In my comments I made it clear that obviously the 25 MPH would not apply to every street and that I fully expected there would be exceptions to the default. Covell would be a perfect example of this. I agree with Rusty49–25 MPH is not appropriate for Covell.
Let me reiterate, what I was trying to do was to make us reconsider our default approach to speed limits which is to increase them automatically if the critical speed indicates we should/must (to make the speed limit enforceable). Instead of this default, I wanted us to think more about traffic calming and be explicit about why certain streets (like Covell) should not have a 25 MPH speed limit. I hope this is clear but if not please ask me and I will try to explain more.
It is also important to note that the CC has done nothing with our recommendation. That is the way most commissions work here: we recommend and advise and the CC decides if it wants to follow our recommendation/advice or not. We felt that speed and speed limits are an issue in Davis and we wanted to create dialogue around the issue.
A citywide 25 MPH speed limit is as impractical as it would be to require all runners and pedestrians to wear a helmet.
Again, I repeat, a 3 way stop at Russell and Lake is an inexpensive way to make sure cars slow down through that stretch of road. It of course is no guarantee, but I suspect if implemented, there would be far fewer accidents/fatalities there. That is because Russell at that location is very unique, with few side streets on the north side, and a bike/pedestrian path on the south side, which causes 1) a lot of bicyclists/pedestrians to cross Russell from the north side to the south side to get onto the bicycle/pedestrian path (and vice versa); 2) there are very few side streets, inviting cars to speed far beyond the posted speed limit; 3) the walnut trees lining Russell on that stretch tend to camouflage bicyclists/pedestrians trying to cross. These unique characteristics make a traffic calming measure like a simple 3 way stop an ideal solution…
I’m curious why we believe we have the right to go fast because we are in an automobile? Is it simply because it [i]can[/i] go fast and psychologically we feel the need to go as fast as possible?
It seems we tolerate high speeds inside of city limits, simply to accommodate people’s desire for convenience. Are we really killing people simply because we want convenience?
I’d love to imagine people driving down Covell at 25 mph, it’d make for such a pleasant street for all users. Any idea how long it would take to go the entire length of Covell at 25mph (with no stops)? …drum roll… 13.2 minutes. And at 35 mph … 8.6 minutes. And 45 mph … 6.7 minutes.
Are the deaths of pedestrians and bicyclists really worth 5-7 minutes of our time?
The likelihood of a pedestrian dying in a collision with an automobile at 20 mph is something like 5% (this doesn’t even consider the mass of the vehicle). The likelihood at 45 mph is something like 40%. Slowing down saves lives across the board and it costs zero dollars to do so. All it takes is for us to lay off the lead foot. [http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm]
The photo of the truck that collided with Megan showed it’s front panel heavily damaged, a human sized dent deep into the body work. This most likely means that the speed the driver was traveling (in the dense fog!) was higher that 45 mph. An appropriate safe speed in fog is probably something like 10 mph, to ensure the ability to stop in time if something or someone is in the road.
@ biddlin
I wish parents would stop teaching their children to drive fast and ignore posted speed limits. I wish they’d teach them to go slower than the speed limits. I wish they’d stop teaching them to believe they are the owners and sole users of the space beneath their wheels. I wish they’d stop teaching them that automobiles are safe. Try looking at the situation from somewhere beyond the 4 foot high perch behind the steering wheel of your 24′ flat bed.
@ Jeff Boone
Have you ever thought that maybe you should get more than a citation or slap on the wrist for running over a jogger? I believe the consequences should be much higher. You frame this without considering the vulnerability of the traffic user. The jogger is forced to cross a road with 2000lb+ vehicles traveling at any number speeds. This is inevitably unfavorable to the jogger. Maybe we should provide SUV’s or 24′ flatbeds at every intersection instead of crosswalks. That way pedestrians that need to cross the road can get in the vehicle and be less vulnerable to death when crossing. They then can leave it at the other side for other pedestrians to use. That would certainly raise their chances of living if they were hit.
For those interested… This link http://cityofdavis.org/pw/traffic/pdfs/Speed-Limit-Map-Street-segments-posted-over-25MPH.pdf from the City’s website shows which streets or street segments are posted at over 25 MPH.
A few things to note: there are other streets posted at 25 MPH for which the “critical speed” is so high that the 25 MPH speed cannot be enforced. And that is the key: the issue is not about posting a given speed but being able to enforce compliance. If drivers in Davis know they can and will be ticketed for exceeding the posted speed limit they will slow down. The bottom line for me is not to allow streets that currently posted at 25 MPH “drift up” to higher postings because of higher critical speeds.
Moorepants makes some helpful points. Here is a summary from a widely cited literature review from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1999:
[quote]It was estimated that only 5 percent of pedestrians would die when struck by a vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour or less. This compares with fatality rates of 40, 80, and nearly 100 percent for striking speeds of 30, 40, and 50 miles per hour or more respectively.[/quote]
@moorepants You obviously have not read any of my previous posts on the dangers of the automobile . I sincerely hope you’re not as blindly ignorant as your rude post indicates .
Like Robb, I was not going to comment further. However, I was also at the meeting he refers to, and after some initial misunderstanding of his proposal, we all managed to understand that the 25 mph speed limit would not generally apply to arterials like Covell. But having said that, the difference in travel times, as pointed out by Moorepants, would be minimal, even if Covell were posted at 25.
The comment about runners suddenly appearing in front of your car is very real for me. When one is making a right turn, one is looking left, and occasionally right, but the left view is most important, since that’s where cars in the travel lanes come from. The worst thing in the world for me is missing a runner from the right or a wrong way bicycle rider (and they’re not all kids) who suddenly shows up thinking they have the right of way.
Finally, several commenters have posted about the increased risk from the speed of the heavier vehicle. That is correct – as all will remember from your physics courses, the momentum of a moving vehicle increases by the square of the speed. So a vehicle traveling at 40 mph will do four times the damage of a vehicle going 20 mph. For me, that’s the bottom line of rational speed limits in town.
Why stop at 25 mph? We will have even less accidents at 15 mph. While we are at it let’s put in speed bumps every 100 yards.
Rusty: I believe you are missing a point here, the 25 mph would allow the city to enforce speed law anywhere in town, it doesn’t mean every street would end up at 25 mph
@biddlin You are correct that I haven’t read your previous posts, I’ve only read the comments you’ve posted to this article and I was responding directly to them. In particular I found your statement:
[quote]Thankfully, I managed to miss all those folks who asserted their right to be in the same space as my front wheels.[/quote]
callous and at least equally rude.
I live in north Davis — way up Anderson. A few of you may recall that about a dozen years ago there were no stop signs and no traffic circle at the corner of Anderson and Alvarado, a very wide and relatively busy intersection. What we had at that intersection, instead, was many collisions, including some collisions with pedestrians. I was very annoyed when they first installed the traffic circle at that intersection because of how much it forced us to slow down. But you get used to it, and I’m not aware of any collisions at that intersection since the traffic circle was installed.
I would rather pay to construct traffic circles to force all drivers to reduce speeds at every dangerous intersection than pay the salaries of police officers to stop only some drivers who are speeding. Both cost money, but the mitigation efforts work better. And you really do get used to them.
I would also like to see the City persuade UCD to include, as part of student orientation, lectures and printed material on bike safety, pedestrian safety, and how to drive appropriately in a small town that has lots of bikes and pedestrians. I am surprised there are not more collisions with student bikers and pedestrians after dark, and it is downright scary to drive, bike or walk anywhere near the university every fall.
Caution: a brief rant!
Do you all realize that speed limits are based on what we are driving! That means each and every citizen and the “migratory” UCD students (or a sample thereof) is responsible for the existing posted speed limits. The only way we will get speeds down is if we either redesign streets that force us to slow down or get us all to walk. That’s it! No amount of driver education on “speed kills” or a desire to change the laws to allow officers to enforce speeds according to their community’s needs (a la Robb’s suggestion) will achieve the desired result. If you don’t want cars on the road, quit building streets. If you want 25 mph streets, redesign them. Just remember, designing streets for 25 mph will also force PD and Fire to slow down, which means that critically ill person will have to wait a few minutes longer for help to arrive and possibly die as a result. Someone will die anyway, just not by way of car!
So which is it, reasonable streets for all, or 25mph for a few. Most people don’t care about this because the system works.
Anytime anyone uses a car, bike, or their Nikes to get from point a to point b, risk results. We can reduce risk, but we can’t eliminate risk. People who think we can eliminate all risk usually propose unreasonable ideas. We’re all going to die someday, right? Sure let’s do what we can to push that out as far as we can where applicable. But I want to be able to get out of Davis at a reasonable speed so I can enjoy this world rather than stay indoors reading pseudo-news sites about what’s going on in our wonderful city.
Now I’m going to get in my car, keep my head on a swivel, and drive!